aa5874

Paul is NOT a reboot of Jesus.

Paul is a reboot of the historization of fictional characters.

In order to historicize Jesus, the authors of the Gospels placed him in the presence of John the Baptist, Herod the tetrarch, Caiaphas the High Priest, and Pilate the Governor.

And in a similar manner, Paul was historicized when he was placed in the presence of Felix the governor, Herod Agrippa, and Festus the governor.

Duvduv

Maryhelena, but doesn't the fact that the parallels only start on chapter 20 indicate more than one author?

maryhelena

Was there one writer of Acts or many writers? I've been reading Pervo's book and, unless I've missed something, he does not divide Acts up into sections with different authors. As for where the Jesus/Paul parallels start in Acts - I don't think that indicates a new author.

Duvduv

Why not??

maryhelena

So, Acts indicates parallels between the 'Paul' story and the JC story - therefore - that indicates a different writer from other parts of Acts? Why should it? Storytelling can take many forms from the hand of one writer. You need a more compelling reason to uphold many authors of Acts than the use of various storytelling mediums within that work.

Adam

There are at least two sources for the first 12 chapters of Acts, with contrasting foci upon Peter and Paul. Chapters 13 to 15 probably has a different source. Chapters 16 through 28 are probably from the author's own experience with Paul.

maryhelena

Use of various sources does not equate to various authors of the book of Acts - which was the question raised.
Acts of the Apostles

Adam

Is there a point in differentiating so starchly between source and editor? If the characters and plot basically come from the sources (as seems the case here), why does one editor mean more than the sources (the real authors)?

maryhelena

Since the author - editor? did not identify his sources, we would have to identify those sources to ascertain how much of his work is taken from a specific source and how, in his writing, editing?, he used or misused that source. What we have in Acts is a story; a story of how early christian origins followed on from the gospel JC story. How many sources, and how they were used, is a secondary issue not a primary issue. It's the finished product that we have to address - the story-line it contains. Yes, of course, it's an interesting question - what, or who, was the original source of the JC story. However, seems to me that the NT writers has done their very best to play with anonymity. And that should indicate that sources, for the NT writers, have always been secondary and not primary. It's only us nosy-parkers in this 21 century that are crying out for identification of the NT authors and their sources. Bottom-line? It's the NT story that is primary not it's source.

Duvduv

Why would the same author wait until chapter 20 to create parallels when the protagonist was introduced so much earlier?!